<p>I should be in bed, but I just came across this blog and thought it was important enough to share. </p>
<p>A man who was rather flippantly pro-life (but Haha, I’ll never have an abortion) was faced with just this choice when his pregnant wife almost bled to death and he had to make the decision. </p>
<p><a href=“http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html[/url]”>http://disgustedbeyondbelief.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-views-on-abortion.html</a></p>
<p>
I don’t remember the exact thread. It wasn’t the “will you raise your son to be a gentleman?” one, but I believe I read it around that time (may have been a quote from an old thread, though). Unfortunately, I’m in midterms, and though I can spare a few seconds here and there to post, I do not have the time to weed through old threads. Someone else may know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wonderful. It seems that the Take Back the Night and related movements have done some good, if young people aren’t being raised with this meme anymore.</p>
<p>However, it’s hardly died. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s where you’re wrong. Here’s an academic study: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem genuinely interested in this issue. Try googling “attitudes toward rape victims” and see where it takes you.</p>
<p>Might I also recommend this book:
</p>
<p>conyat, I will have to ceed that point to you that there may be some people who think a rape victim asked for it. Although it is a 1990 case and the name is not cited, it wasn’t from the 1800s. My experience, however, has been that juries convict men of rape and rarely believe the victim brought it on. For example, </p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901642.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901642.html</a></p>
<p>I suspect the counsel for the police officer argued the crime if there was one was of theft (not paying) and not of sex. I don’t think most juries would buy such an argument.</p>
<p>
sounds good, but I won’t be near a computer for the next few days.</p>
<p>This was a very moving account of a woman whose life was in danger due to the pregnancy and neither the baby nor the mother would have survived without termination of the pregnancy. This is a far cry from late term abortion of viable infants or elective first trimester abortions. </p>
<p>I think one of the big objections to so many abortions being done is that they are done for the convenience of the mother (parents) without regard to the fact that the fetus has real signs of life. This is why some states are trying to move towards mandatory sonograms prior to pregnancy termination, so the potential mom knows what’s devloping inside her at that point in time.</p>
<p>As to one poster’s suggestion (if I understood correctly) that babies be delivered early if the mother doesn’t want the pregnancy and then spend time as a premie: it would seem that carrying an otherwise healthy baby to term, deciding whether to terminate rights, and then if so giving a full-term baby up for adoption would be a better way to go for all involved. Assume that mother’s life is not in danger, health is not compromised, she just decided that it wasn’t right time, right place.</p>
<p>I just read the blog account (btw, the man was pro-choice from the start, not pro-life as stated above). In this case the man gave permission for a D&C to save his wife’s life. She was in the process of a miscarriage with heavy bleeding. I’m about as pro-life as they come, and I don’t consider this “abortion.” Her body was already naturally aborting the pregnancy.<br>
I’m not sure if even Catholic theologians (any out there to correct me if I’m wrong?) would consider a D&C in this case morally wrong. I doubt it because the purpose of the surgery is to stop the bleeding, not to kill the fetus, which could not have survived anyway. The idea that pro-lifers would expect the mother to bleed to death because at that point the baby (who had no hope of survival) may still have been alive is false. The anger and obscenities that the father hurls at such imaginary prolifers, and the violence and torture he wishes on them are ugly and completely unwarranted, and based on false assumptions (pro-lifers are not interested in preventing D&Cs on women who have heavy bleeding during miscarriage). His evil wishes against his “enemies” are more than likely the result of his feeling frightened, angry and helpless in this situation and wanting an outlet for those feelings. Even if all abortions were outlawed, a D&C in this situation would still be permitted and not considered “abortion.” IMO, this essay is about miscarriage, not abortion. </p>
<p>On this thread someone mentioned that it was the policy of a particular hospital to “save the baby before the mother.” Nonsense. There is no hospital in the world that has such a policy. In any emergency hospitals/doctors do whatever can be done to save anyone who can be saved. Every case is unique and split-second decisions have to be made at times to concentrate efforts on the one who seems to have the best chance of survival. In that case it happened that the mother died, but the (handicapped) baby survived. I know of two such cases personally (both resulting from car accidents)–in one both mother and child died, in the other the mother survived but the baby died. Sometimes both survive. It is wrong to assume that it was “hospital policy” that caused the mother to die and burdened the poor father with a handicapped child. </p>
<p>Can anyone make a case for D&X? Is there anyone out there who says “D&X saved my life?” I don’t think anyone is going to miss this barbaric procedure.</p>
<p>atomom–I misswrote. I did mean Pro-choice, and I can’t believe I wrote pro-life! Gremlins in my keyboard?</p>
<p>If I had been that poor man, I would have voted for D & X far sooner–probably before a transfusion was needed. At the point where the fetus is an agressor against the woman’s body…it’s out of there. The point is, this law makes it mandatory to dally until her actual life is in danger, and that is cutting it too close for my taste.</p>
<p>Anecdotes make for bad law.</p>
<p>(It’s a big country.)</p>
<p>“sounds good, but I won’t be near a computer for the next few days.”</p>
<p>and the world weeps…</p>
<p>Again with this 8 and a half month stuff. Was she also married to a horse? You know, because if you allow gay marriage, what’s next? ;)</p>
<p>Me thinks in most cases at 8 and a half months, somebody notice…maybe not. So can you explain why the person would wait 8 and a half months? </p>
<p>Oh that’s right she’s involved with a “foriegner”. Cause we all know only “foriegner” would leave his expectant mother. I’ll bet he was part of some terrorist organization as well. </p>
<p>How bout we make the father her pastor? or her youth minister? </p>
<p>I guess I dissaprove of the SC ruling because I know it won’t stop there, will it? When you have pharmistists unwilling to dispense plan B pills, yet happily fill orders for viagra, where do you think it will end? </p>
<p>Having a similar discussion with my D last night about her bio class and genetic testing. Would you give birth to a child whom never-ever could care for themselves or would you abort? Not talking downs here, there are apparently several genetic situations where you can produce a body with no real thought functions. (the things they teach in college) Or would you have children if you carried a genetic code that would produce a child that would die by age 10?</p>
<p>Sometimes there’s choices in life where there isn’t a touchy feely answer, the abortion decision is one of those.</p>
<p>“I guess I dissaprove of the SC ruling because I know it won’t stop there, will it? When you have pharmistists unwilling to dispense plan B pills, yet happily fill orders for viagra, where do you think it will end?”</p>
<p>Could go the other way. In my state, it is now ILLEGAL for a pharmacy NOT to fill a plan B prescription.</p>
<p>I’m the first one to acknowledge that in a free country, a lot of people will make irresponsible, stupid, shortsighted decisions, like having unprotected hetero sex when they don’t want to get pregnant. A lot of people will also find themselves on the horns of sensitive ethical dilemmas as a result of those stupid decisions.</p>
<p>The question is, does involving Congress in those decisions make them better? Is Congress really better at solving moral and ethical questions than women, doctors, and clergypeople?</p>
<p>Please. I am WAY more concerned about the foolish, selfish people giving birth than I am about the foolish, selfish people having abortions. When I see the suggestion that doctors should be forced to administer nontherapeutic ultrasounds so the pregnant woman “knows what she’s doing,” I wonder if the government should force women who intend to continue their pregnancies to stay up all night with a screaming infant so they “know what they’re doing.” I mean, do you really want Nancy Pelosi in charge of this kind of thing?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As a former special ed. teacher who spent all of her time with emotionally handicapped kids in either residential settings or psychiatric hosptials, I can say that my opinion is, with NO reservation whatsoever, that abortion is the LESSER of two evils sometimes
[quote/]
</p>
<p>I believe it is this attitude that has devalued the lives not only of the unborn but of the newly born. Look at the sentences that mothers who kill their newborn children receive. Would berurah support killing those children who are going to be abused right after they are born?
When are we going to allow killing of infants who are “defective” because killing them now is the lesser of two evils???
I challenge all of you who feel second trimester abortions and PBA should be allowed to hold a nineteen week baby who has just been born as it dies and to feel the same way. These babies feel pain and are fully formed. It is barbaric to allow these babies to be killed for convenience.</p>
<p>“Could go the other way. In my state, it is now ILLEGAL for a pharmacy NOT to fill a plan B prescription”</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>I up the road from you a couple hours. The fact that it had to go as far as the governor stepping in and hearings about Pharmistist’s “feelings” was bit much don’t you think? </p>
<p>I mean they didn’t have issues with fertility or erection pills, yet maybe God is speaking to those folks saying not to attempt reproduction? </p>
<p>Plan B was held out of the market for years for religous reasons by the FDA and this administration. </p>
<p>Besides who says a pharmacist or anyone else has to allways have happy aspects of their jobs? Should a pharmistist be allowed only to dispense drugs that make them happy?</p>
<p>“I believe it is this attitude that has devalued the lives not only of the unborn but of the newly born”</p>
<p>and that attitude started when??? How many thousands of years ago? You seem to think this is a fairly new thing, it isn’t. It’s gone on for centuries. </p>
<p>Besides what so scary about choice to you? What do you fear? Are you so uneasy about your position that you cannot see that anyone else would think the way you do without force of law? </p>
<p>The abortion laws are written to provide choice, a person can choose not to have one. Is your arguement so weak that you must make it illegal for someone to do something different? or can your arguement stand on it’s own merits? I would think it could, yet you don’t… why?</p>
<p>“challenge all of you who feel second trimester abortions and PBA should be allowed to hold a nineteen week baby who has just been born as it dies and to feel the same way. These babies feel pain and are fully formed. It is barbaric to allow these babies to be killed for convenience.”</p>
<p>Are you sure this is happening for “convenience”? I mean what is it, a slow friday with nothing good on TV? Whatda want to do? mmm I dunno, let’s go have an abortion? That kind of conveniece? </p>
<p>Why are you passing this choice off as some sort of boredom activity?</p>
<p>
Let me rephrase this just so’s you won’t misrepresent me again:
If it were <em>MY</em> choice to have <em>MY</em> child (G-d forbid) aborted <em>OR</em> to have him/her suffer extreme abuse at the hands of someone after birth and either be permanently scarred or dead from that, I would, without reservation, opt for the former. This does not “devalue” life. To the contrary, it values it much more highly that you do, keymom. </p>
<p>Peg me whatever way you want. My record with children, both mine and the children I’ve “adopted,” mentored, taught, and cared for, speaks for itself. Yep, that’s me…the ol’ “life devaluer.” :(</p>
<p>“Could go the other way. In my state, it is now ILLEGAL for a pharmacy NOT to fill a plan B prescription”</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>I up the road from you a couple hours. The fact that it had to go as far as the governor stepping in and hearings about Pharmistist’s “feelings” was bit much don’t you think?"</p>
<p>As I understand it, what the Board ended up doing was rather different than you describe. They did not require pharmacists to fill the prescriptions. What they did was require is that the PHARMACY fill the prescription. Business owners can decide to operate as publicly regulated pharmacies, or they can decide to invest in something else - it is totally up to them. </p>
<p>As to the individual pharmacists, I favored (and continue to favor) the right of conscience, which could include pharmacists deciding to go into another line of work, or refusing to fill the prescriptions and deal with their employers, or having employers work around individual pharmacists. I think the final decision an excellent one.</p>
<p>“pharmacists to fill the prescriptions. What they did was require is that the PHARMACY fill the prescription”</p>
<p>obviously depending on the size of the pharmacy the ability to fill any RX can be handled by someone there. There are still pharmacies with one person on staff, they will have to fill. So when there are more pharmacists available, the Pharmacy can fill with the one that doesn’t object.With just one, has to fill. Maybe we can have them wear a large red “B” so everyone will know. </p>
<p>I’m not unhappy with the decision either. What I am unhappy with is the fact that it had to become a “decision” in the first place. Having to take 10 pills a day for all the things wrong with my body and squeeze out a few more years, I do not wish to debate with the pharmacist the morals of the chemicals I have to take. I would think that concept should apply across the board without question. So the concept of a pill pusher having a say outside of a warning about chemical reactions of cross medication in what RX he/she dispenses is stepping over the line. Decisions are mine, not his/hers.</p>
<p>“There are still pharmacies with one person on staff, they will have to fill.”</p>
<p>Tough. Pharmacies are publicly regulated, and have to comply with public regulations. If they don’t like it, they can go into another line of work. Pacifists don’t become soldiers either. No one has prevented a pharmacist from exercising her conscience.</p>